Judge rejects plea (From Barry And District News)

Judge rejects plea

A LEGAL challenge launched against the Vale of Glamorgan Unitary Development Plan has been rejected in the High Court.

The challenge was made by Vale resident Max Wallis who alleged that the council"s UDP was legally flawed and called for fundamental changes to the adopted plan, including the inclusion of a Green Belt, the deletion of the Airport Access Road and Barry to Cardiff Waterfront Link Road; as well as the rejection of a housing allocation at Rhoose; the deletion of land allocated for mineral extraction at Wenvoe Quarry; and the deletion of an entire chapter on waste management.

Following the three-day court hearing, His Honour Judge Wyn Williams, QC, in his judgement, concluded that the claim should be dismissed and deemed that much of the claimant"s evidence was, in reality, a "fresh attempt to debate the planning merits of the points at issue".

Mr Wallis said this was a very disappointing decision, strongly weighted towards officialdom against the citizen and voluntary community groups.

He said: "The decision implies that erroneous figures and outdated material can be included in development plans.

"The judge further considered that the Welsh transitional arrangements effectively remove the powers of the court to quash faulty parts of unitary plans. This decision means the citizen loses the right to legal redress over UDPs."

William Upton QC on behalf of Mr Wallis said there is a reasonable prospect that another court would take a different view and he sought leave to appeal.

Judge Wyn Williams said the Court of Appeal should decide.

Keith Stockdale speaking for Barry Friends of the Earth, said: "The process is absurd. The UDP processes have taken since 1998. The UDP is now out of date and about to be superseded by the LDP (Local Development Plan).

"Sustainable development comes much stronger in the new LDP and there are stronger provisions for including community views and interests.

"The council has hopefully learned from this court challenge that it needs to take on board local concerns and plan for community benefit."

Councillor A J Williams, deputy leader of the council and cabinet member for planning and transportation, said: "While I am delighted that the allegations of Mr Wallis have been so crushingly rejected in the High Court, it is a matter of deep regret to me that he saw fit to launch his spurious challenge at all.

"In my view it represented an unwarranted, unnecessary and unjustified waste of council taxpayers" money, particularly at a time when we are faced with competing demands for limited resources.

"What makes matters even worse is that Mr Wallis funded his ill-considered and ill-conceived challenge by claiming Legal Aid from the public purse.

"It is difficult to escape the conclusion that, by launching his abortive court action, Mr Wallis was simply attempting to re-visit issues which had already been closely scrutinised by an independent inspector at a public inquiry as well as being carefully considered by the council."

Max Wallis said: "I"m concerned that Councillor Tony Williams does not respect the legal process. The judge did not reject "allegations" - he accepted the UDP contains errors but declined to delete sections (the court has no power to correct errors).

"Cllr Williams should recognise that his council created the legal confrontation by steamrollering over 1000 objections to extra housing at Rhoose and by rejecting with inadequate reasons the inspector"s recommendation to establish a Green Belt.

"The Welsh Minister, when declining to intervene on such points, advised objectors to go to the High Court. The judicial system is not the best or even a fair system for securing people"s rights to be heard, but our legal team is considering whether to go to appeal."